A Good And Bad Leader In Machiavelli's The Prince

Machiavelli thinks it is better for the prince to be feared than loved. For a prince who is loved will be compassionate towards others, mainly his soldiers. When danger is at bay his men will hold him in the highest regard. Should an attack occur they will very quickly turn their backs on him. He may be viewed as weak and untrustworthy, thus easier to overtake. As he explains, “And men are less hesitant about harming someone who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared because love is held together by a chain of obligation which, since men are a sorry lot, is broken on every occasion in which their own self-interest is concerned: but fear is held together by dread of punishment which will never abandon you” (p.46). If he is loved rather than hated he can never keep an army of soldiers under his command. However, he must not be so feared to the point he is hated to do so he must not take what does not belong to him, and keep his hands off the wives of his subjects.

Machiavelli tackles the question “is it better to be loved or feared by people?”. Giving his insight on the matter, it is clear to see the benefits and downside to both. Every prince should desire to be perceived as a kind ruler rather than cruel one. However, he must avoid misusing or overusing his compassion. Cesare Borgia was considered cruel, yet his oppressiveness ended up resulting in peace and unity in Romagna (Machiavelli,trans; W. K. Marriott). Meanwhile on the other hand of mercifulness, when the Florentines tried to avoid cruelty, this allowed Pistoia to be destroyed (Machiavelli,trans; W. K. Marriott). Machiavelli argues once a

Machiavelli led us to a question that was continuously in disagreement. That question was “Is it better to be loved than feared, or vice versa” (p.392)? Machiavelli thought that one is to be loved & feared. Nevertheless, at the same time it’s tremendously hard to achieve being both loved & feared. Machiavelli believed that if one had to do without one of them that it would be a safer to be feared than to be loved. For example if a ruler was more loved than feared then if you served their men’s interest & were also devoted to them they would promise you their blood, possessions, lives, & children until you needed help because once you needed help you were on our own. If you’re more feared than loved then when you’re in trouble your

Machiavelli also presents the idea that the power of a leader depends more on the qualities of the man than on of god. Thats the matter, loved and feared-qualities need there limits the same way as anything else in a social relation. Machiavelli himself stating that a man who makes himself loved than who makes himself feared; the reason is that love is a link to obligation, which men, because they are rotten, and will break any time soon. Machiavelli complicates the nation of good as purely subordinate power, arguing that the excess of “good” can actually do harm. In this case too much clemency can lead to uprisings and civil war. Cruelty what Machiavelli believes in, states that it can serve the greater good. I personally disagree with Machiavelli's text, I think love is stronger than fear. A commander loved by his soldiers will defeat a commander feared by his soldiers in almost all battles, but the feared commander is less subject to arbitrary chance. Its not only love that can destroy a man, so can fear.

However, Machiavelli's implies that a leader who strives to be loved would avoid punishing his people; hence this leader is vulnerable to a transgression by his people since there are no repercussions for opposing his rule. The example of Scipio he used portrays this perfectly as his army rebelled due to his kindness. The absence of repercussions for opposing a prince hence can lead to their authority being undermined, which suggests that it is better for a prince to be loved rather than feared. However, this ignores that people can be blinded by their love for a leader, robbing them of their ability to transgress in the way that he describes; the supporter of President Trump demonstrates this perfectly.

Machiavelli argued, through his most notable work The Prince, that is most advantageous for a ruler to maintain appearances of compassion, but act rational and merciless. One of the core principles he repeated several times throughout his book was that although it be best to have both, leaders should value the fear of their subjects over their love. But a ruler had better be careful to not overdo it so as to not create resentment since men cannot be trusted to be loyal through affection: “[i]n general men are ungrateful, fickle, false, cowardly, covetous, dissimulating, hungry for profit and quick to evade danger” (The Prince, 17.4)1. The general

Niccolo Machiavelli stressed that “one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved…for love is held by a chain of obligation which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails.” He felt that a true leader must be cunning and deceptive, winning the hearts of his people through power and influence. If he could not be liked, he could at least get by knowing he has intimidated these below him into submission. However rash or cruel this may seem, Machiavelli’s argument is not one to be countered easily.

Machiavelli ties virtue very closely to that of prudence. He defines virtue as acting exceptionally and draws a distinction between morality and virtue. In many respects Machiavelli defines virtue by prudence. If a ruler is able to balance his violence, keep his subjects appeased, and have a dire understanding of his threats, then in Machiavelli's eyes the ruler has a strong virtue. What must be understood is that the throne is always in jeopardy and someone is always there to try to knock the prince off his pedestal. This is a prime understanding that a prince must have, and fuels the infamous argument by Machiavelli that it is better to be feared than loved. Machiavelli explains that, for the most part, love is very subjective and eventually will subside unless further concessions are made to appease his subjects. In addition, people only care about their personal conveniences and a prince would have to overextend himself if he were to be loved by all. Fear, however, is not subjective and has a universal effect on all his people. Fear can be attained by sporadic violent acts. One must understand, however, that massive amounts of violence can not be done because it would portray the Prince as tyrant, and might stir up his people to revolt against him. The acts must be calculated, concise, and serve a direct purpose not only to his benefit but to the

According to Machiavelli's view of how to be an effective leader, a ruler should be one who is feared but not hated. Machiavelli states that fear is better than love because love is unreliable. All of the reasons that Machiavelli gives relate to how human nature controls men and drives them to commit crimes in order to reach their goals and satisfy themselves.

This is not to say, however, that Machiavelli intended the prince to be indulgent and benevolent to the people, he says quite clearly in Chapter 17, "…it is much more safe to be feared than loved, when you have to choose between the two…" Machiavelli's reasoning was that an excess of clemency towards the subjects when they do something wrong would lead to widespread crime, hurting the whole community. Therefore, being cruel and severe to those who deserve it would allow for the greatest utility (Chapter 17). This view on how to maintain relations with the populace is both logical and realistic. However, Machiavelli draws a clear distinction between being feared and hated. He writes, " A prince must make himself feared in such a manner that … he shall at least not incur their hatred, for being the feared, and not hated, can go very well together," (Chapter 17). The way that a ruler can earn his subjects hatred, says Machiavelli, is if he steals or harms their property. Therefore, by being severe and cruel in his punishments he inspires fear. In being feared, the prince further secures his empowerment, for none of his subjects dare to attempt to take it from him.

He placed emphasis on how a prince should do anything to maintain and increase their own powers – it was apparent that he felt the individual needs of a prince in terms of the power and authority was important and that a prince should do whatever he felt necessary to protect the state and as a result it would mean a prince’s position as a ruler was also prodected. [Wheeler, 2011] Machiavelli placed a large amount on the emphasis on the fact that a prince must be seen to be a moral - but he is able act un-morally if it contributes to the good of the state or provides him with more power. He must be loved by the people and he must also be feared in order to maintain his role as a ruler of a state. Machiavelli argued that if a prince cannot be both loved and feared - it is better for him to be feared as more people would be scared to question him and afraid of the consequences that may follow. This results in more power and authority for the prince but at the same time it means that the prince is less accountable. This is a benefit for the prince but no for the people living within the state that Machiavelli is suggesting (Macmillian, 2006)

If there’s one thing I’ve picked up from this chapter alone is that Machiavelli is a douche. It seems like he’s saying to never be generous because it’s just not worth the time or the breathe. I think it’s better to be known as a kind ruler like George Washington rather than being known to be as cruel as Hitler. I would never use this mindset in our own government because this isn’t Nazi germany or Mother Russia! I get that people want to look all big and tough and act like the smartest person in the room, but sometimes you gotta admit to yourself that being cruel all the time will bring you nothing but lifelong hurt and guilt. In being cruel, you can be sure to look out for an uprising coming your way if you were the cruel prince. With that said, I deeply disagree with Machiavelli’s statement of being cruel at all costs and not being generous to the people. You will receive nothing but good words and appreciative reward in the

Machiavelli’s The Prince can be utilized as a guidebook to answer: “How best can a ruler maintain control of his state?” Therefore, if any employer reads it as a how-to-book rather than just a work of political theory, they can be seen as the ruler while the state would be the rest of the employees. If this is followed like an agenda, the sole purpose of government is not the good of the people but the stability of the state and the perpetuation of the established ruler’s control. It would define the city as an entity existing to serve its ruler rather than its populace. Obtaining the support of the people is not a goal in itself, but rather a means for ensuring that the city remains fortified.

Speaking of such qualities as ruthless and mercy, Machiavelli argues that every ruler would like to be regarded as merciful and not cruel. Another thing is that often in order to retain power the ruler has to show cruelty. If the state is threatened with chaos or mess, the task of the prince is to prevent this even if it is necessary to arrange some reprisals. After all, with respect to the rest of the citizens, these executions will become a noble deed since riots and chaos would bring suffering to them (Machiavelli 24). Machiavelli provides an example of Cesare Borgia whose cruelty led to peace in the state. In that way, the

What must be understood is that the throne is always in jeopardy and someone is always there to try to knock the prince off his pedestal. This is a prime understanding that a prince must have, and fuels the infamous argument by Machiavelli that it is better to be feared than loved. Machiavelli explains that, for the most part, love is very subjective and eventually will subside unless further concessions are made to appease his subjects. In addition, people only care about their personal conveniences and a prince would have to overextend himself if he were to be loved by all. Fear, however, is not subjective and has a universal effect on all his people. Fear can be attained by sporadic violent acts. One must understand, however, that massive amounts of violence can not be done because it would portray the Prince as tyrant, and might stir up his people to revolt against him. The acts must be calculated, concise, and serve a direct purpose not only to his benefit but to the people’s also. Despite what might be assumed, Machiavelli is really developing a principality based around the people, where the Prince’s actions are merely to save his own head from the chopping block.